(07-12-2012 08:57 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote: OEC may have found a way to reconcile dinosaurs with their faith, but they have not found a way to reconcile it with what we know about reality and nature. This is why OEC, ECs, and TCs, don't have the support of science. They tack on something extra and unnecessary to the end of it to "reconcile" it with their faith.

As Laplace said to Napoleon when presenting him with his model for the Solar System
"[Sire,] je n'ai pas eu besoin de cette hypothèse."

Sire, I had no need of that hypothesis.

What's a TC?

Anyway, ECs and TEs do have the support of science. They follow science as much as any atheist. The only difference is that they believe God authored evolution.

No, just no.
"God authored evolution" is not a scientific concept, so no, they don't follow science as much as any atheist.

This is a real problem in your understanding.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

(07-12-2012 08:57 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote: OEC may have found a way to reconcile dinosaurs with their faith, but they have not found a way to reconcile it with what we know about reality and nature. This is why OEC, ECs, and TCs, don't have the support of science. They tack on something extra and unnecessary to the end of it to "reconcile" it with their faith.

As Laplace said to Napoleon when presenting him with his model for the Solar System
"[Sire,] je n'ai pas eu besoin de cette hypothèse."

Sire, I had no need of that hypothesis.

What's a TC?

Anyway, ECs and TEs do have the support of science. They follow science as much as any atheist. The only difference is that they believe God authored evolution.

What? If you propose that god "authored" evolution, you're not keeping theology and science separate; you're mixing them together.

Fine line, but no.

Much like faith, it's filling in the unanswerable questions with answers. Science is based on empirical evidence that can be tested again and again. That claim cannot be proved through science; thus, it becomes a theological claim.

If it is an unanswerable question, then there can be no known answer, which is why science does not mix it into the equation. When someone else does this, they are mixing science and something else (in this case faith). Even if they admit that this is a theological speculation, they are still mixing them. Do they think that the science bolsters their claim or that their claim bolsters that made by science? Or both? The answer to all 3 is that it is indifferent because the answer to the question is not known or knowable and any attempt to answer it is irrelevant.